PALL vs. GLL
PALL (Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF) and GLL (ProShares UltraShort Gold) are both exchange-traded funds - PALL is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt), while GLL is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Gold (-200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PALL returned 6.21%/yr vs -20.73%/yr for GLL. At a correlation of -0.40, they often move in opposite directions. PALL charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for GLL.
Performance
PALL vs. GLL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PALL achieves a -21.83% return, which is significantly lower than GLL's 3.86% return. Over the past 10 years, PALL has outperformed GLL with an annualized return of 6.21%, while GLL has yielded a comparatively lower -20.73% annualized return.
PALL
- 1D
- -1.47%
- 1M
- -2.15%
- 6M
- -32.92%
- YTD
- -21.83%
- 1Y
- 2.34%
- 3Y*
- -1.17%
- 5Y*
- -15.52%
- 10Y*
- 6.21%
GLL
- 1D
- 5.23%
- 1M
- 9.87%
- 6M
- 18.09%
- YTD
- 3.86%
- 1Y
- -37.13%
- 3Y*
- -37.68%
- 5Y*
- -26.90%
- 10Y*
- -20.73%
PALL vs. GLL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PALL Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF | -21.83% | 74.07% | -17.38% | -38.77% | -6.28% | -23.26% | 25.27% | 53.94% | 17.23% | 55.73% |
GLL ProShares UltraShort Gold | 3.86% | -62.81% | -33.33% | -14.91% | -2.12% | 1.66% | -41.47% | -26.95% | 5.39% | -23.67% |
Correlation
The correlation between PALL and GLL is -0.63, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.63 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.48 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.46 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.37 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 14, 2010 | -0.40 |
Over the past year, the inverse relationship between PALL and GLL has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.40 to -0.63, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
PALL vs. GLL — Risk / Return Rank
PALL
GLL
PALL vs. GLL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) and ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| PALL | GLL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.72 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.29 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.05 | 0.90 | +0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.05 | -0.57 | +0.63 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.11 | -0.84 | +0.96 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PALL vs. GLL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PALL drawdown since its inception was -73.63%, smaller than the maximum GLL drawdown of -99.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PALL and GLL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PALL | GLL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -73.63% | -99.24% | +25.61% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -43.20% | -65.10% | +21.90% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -43.20% | -87.95% | +44.75% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -73.63% | -89.76% | +16.13% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -73.63% | -95.76% | +22.13% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -61.47% | -98.71% | +37.24% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -27.02% | -85.19% | +58.17% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 20.49% | 44.14% | -23.65% |
Volatility
PALL vs. GLL - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) is 12.76%, while ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) has a volatility of 15.04%. This indicates that PALL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PALL | GLL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.76% | 15.04% | -2.28% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 36.37% | 46.46% | -10.09% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 50.61% | 55.09% | -4.48% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 42.52% | 36.69% | +5.83% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 38.10% | 32.42% | +5.68% |
PALL vs. GLL - Expense Ratio Comparison
PALL has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than GLL's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
PALL vs. GLL - Dividend Comparison
Neither PALL nor GLL has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
PALL and GLL have a correlation of -0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GLL has higher volatility (15.04%) compared to PALL (12.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PALL dropped -73.63% vs GLL's -99.24%.
On 10-year performance, PALL leads with 6.21% vs -20.73% for GLL. On fees, PALL is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, PALL has been the lower-risk option at 12.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, PALL has performed better with a 6.21% return vs -20.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PALL is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for GLL.
PALL and GLL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
PALL is categorized as Precious Metals, while GLL is Leveraged Commodities. PALL tracks Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt), while GLL tracks Bloomberg Gold (-200%). They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PALL and 0.95% for GLL.
PALL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.05 vs -0.68), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for PALL and GLL
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer